Final answer:
Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal policies, specifically the Indian Removal Act of 1830, are an example of creating a 'replacement origin myth' that justifies power imbalances, as stated by Levins. This policy led to the Trail of Tears, where Native American tribes suffered greatly during forced relocations. Jackson's justifications portrayed the dispossession of Native Americans as a natural and inevitable process.
Step-by-step explanation:
Indian Removal and Andrew Jackson's Justifications
President Andrew Jackson's policies and justifications for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 can be seen as an example of creating an 'origin myth'. Jackson, leveraging his reputation as an Indian fighter and the prevailing public opinion that Native Americans were obstacles to progress, pushed forth the idea that the removal was necessary for civilization and progress. This policy led to the forced displacement, known as the Trail of Tears, where the 'Five Civilized Tribes' - the Cherokee, Creek (Muskogee), Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole - suffered greatly on their journey to designated lands in the West.
Justifying these actions, Jackson and his supporters framed this mistreatment as a natural evolution of society, which resonates with Levin's assertion about how power imbalances require narratives that present the status quo as inevitable and unchangeable. This myth supported the idea that Indians had to make way for the 'superior' civilization of White settlers, masking the inhumanity of the act with a veneer of progress and inevitability.
The treatment of Native Americans during the Age of Jackson reflects a darker time in American history where racial hatred and desire for land expansion were cloaked in the guise of progress. Jackson's narrative served to rationalize the Indian Removal as a natural, inevitable event, thus enacting a 'replacement origin myth' that justified the massive power imbalance between the United States and the indigenous peoples.